the only efficiency argument I can see for cycling is that it is generally more efficient than walking. But, we can improve a lot even then by electric bikes and rickshaws. Even ignoring that, cycling does not trump walking when the cycling causes an increase in journey length that is able to offset energy efficiency.
a good example of efficiency is comparisom between food powered human and battery car. 1 meter squared can be converted at 10-15% to electricity. Crops less than 1%. Invested energy higher for crops than P.V. and payback for P.V. is very quick. Transmission loss is far less than 10%. Human distribution, digestion losses?. Vehicle can now be over 90% efficient. Humans 25% at max.
Sun-->1%x25% (maximum) = 0.25%!! Thats with no additional energy in reality can be 5 times the energy in the food.
Progress in China in particular is being made by the adoption of electric vehicles, instead of bicycles. This is because machines do physical work better than humans, and the technology of electric power is superior in transportation. Adoption of electric power or assistence to human effort, would benefit the driver as well as everyone else, but regulations in London prevent this sensible progress in these by requiring them to be free of electric improvement. Not helping environment nor economy,
evidence suggests that when you do more physical work, you eat more to compensate, which disproves the suggestion that cycling a lot is going to reduce emissions. The one thing it does, is not produce locally toxic emissions, which is pretty much the only bonus. It is also far from proven that it is healthy. In traffic, the evidence to date is very flawed as it applies to clean air, and ignores the action of breathing particulates which are extremely harmful in the long term.
human power is not clean power. Muscle converts only about 25% of the energy in food. That food took an average of 5 units of energy to make every one that you eat. This means that it is reasonable to talk in terms of a conversion of less than 10%. On the other hand, an electric vehicle that was small would not need to weigh much more but could readily be in the region of 70% efficient. When renewables are available, including solar P.V. the carbon footprint is much lower than food.
wow u guys must be super super fit. as in 8 packs ?
HorsesRmyDRUGS 11 months ago
the only efficiency argument I can see for cycling is that it is generally more efficient than walking. But, we can improve a lot even then by electric bikes and rickshaws. Even ignoring that, cycling does not trump walking when the cycling causes an increase in journey length that is able to offset energy efficiency.
atbee 1 year ago
a good example of efficiency is comparisom between food powered human and battery car. 1 meter squared can be converted at 10-15% to electricity. Crops less than 1%. Invested energy higher for crops than P.V. and payback for P.V. is very quick. Transmission loss is far less than 10%. Human distribution, digestion losses?. Vehicle can now be over 90% efficient. Humans 25% at max.
Sun-->1%x25% (maximum) = 0.25%!! Thats with no additional energy in reality can be 5 times the energy in the food.
atbee 1 year ago
Progress in China in particular is being made by the adoption of electric vehicles, instead of bicycles. This is because machines do physical work better than humans, and the technology of electric power is superior in transportation. Adoption of electric power or assistence to human effort, would benefit the driver as well as everyone else, but regulations in London prevent this sensible progress in these by requiring them to be free of electric improvement. Not helping environment nor economy,
atbee 1 year ago
evidence suggests that when you do more physical work, you eat more to compensate, which disproves the suggestion that cycling a lot is going to reduce emissions. The one thing it does, is not produce locally toxic emissions, which is pretty much the only bonus. It is also far from proven that it is healthy. In traffic, the evidence to date is very flawed as it applies to clean air, and ignores the action of breathing particulates which are extremely harmful in the long term.
atbee 1 year ago
human power is not clean power. Muscle converts only about 25% of the energy in food. That food took an average of 5 units of energy to make every one that you eat. This means that it is reasonable to talk in terms of a conversion of less than 10%. On the other hand, an electric vehicle that was small would not need to weigh much more but could readily be in the region of 70% efficient. When renewables are available, including solar P.V. the carbon footprint is much lower than food.
atbee 1 year ago
human power is clean power
tomcatfranks 1 year ago
I love this!!
It makes a sightseeing much more enjoyable.
allgoo19 2 years ago
Donde puedo comprar estas bicicletas? Me interesan comprar varias
Tonivelerolongyang 2 years ago